Energy Transition

The cost of CO2 transport and storage in global integrated assessment modeling

Abstract: This paper assesses the range of CO2 transport and storage costs and evaluates their impact on economy-wide modelling results of decarbonization pathways. Much analytic work has been dedicated to evaluating the cost and performance of various CO2 capture technologies, but less attention has been paid to evaluating the cost of CO2 transport and storage. Many integrated assessment modeling studies assume a combined cost for CO2 transport and storage that is uniform in all regions, commonly estimated at $10/tCO2. Realistically, the cost of CO2 transport and storage is not fixed at $10/tCO2 and varies across geographic, geologic, and institutional settings.

We surveyed the literature to identify key sources of variability in transport and storage costs and developed a method to quantify and incorporate these elements into a cost range. We find that onshore pipeline transport and storage costs vary from $4 to 45/tCO2 depending on key sources of variability including transport distance, scale (i.e. quantity of CO2 transported and stored), monitoring assumptions, reservoir geology, and transport cost variability such as pipeline capital costs.

Using the MIT Economic Projection and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model, we examined the impact of variability in transport and storage costs by applying a range of uniform costs in all regions in a future where global temperature rise is limited to 2°C. We then developed three modeling cases where transport and storage costs vary regionally. In these latter cases, global cumulative CO2 captured and stored through 2100 ranges from 290 to 377 Gt CO2, compared to 425 Gt CO2 when costs are assumed to be uniformly $10/t CO2 in all regions.

We conclude that the widely used assumption of $10/tCO2 for the transport and storage of CO2 is reasonable in some regions, but not in others. Moreover, CCS deployment is more sensitive to transport and storage costs in some regions than others, particularly China. More analysis is needed to further quantify CO2 transport and storage costs at a regional level.  

Thoughts on a federal government stimulus package for buildings

Abstract: Residential buildings account for 22% of U.S. carbon emissions and there is widespread consensus that these carbon emissions can only be reduced if buildings become both more efficient and switch all of their fuel sources to electricity. We have developed an outline for an economic recovery package that would support energy retrofits for the 84 million detached single-family homes in the U.S. These retrofits would lead to a 31% to 48% reduction in U.S. residential carbon emission while creating well-paying clean tech jobs distributed across the nation. The goal of the program is to raise the nationwide retrofitting rate to 4% by 2030 so that all single-family homes will be retrofitted by 2050. Ultimately, the goal of the program is to provide a base of support so that market forces can sustain a 4% retrofitting rate after the ten year program phases out.

Mitigation of CO2 emissions from international shipping through national allocation

Abstract: Neither international treaties nor domestic policies control carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from international shipping. To enhance mitigation, a new multilateral mechanism could allocate these emissions to national carbon budgets, where different options could be used based on the location of industry actors and ships.

We analyze five allocation options, showing that a clear majority of CO2 emissions would be distributed to ten countries under each option; however, the top ten countries vary across allocation options and the amount of CO2 emissions allotted to individual countries could increase their carbon budgets thousand-fold or more.

We further examine how the different objectives, principles for decision-making, and geographical coverage of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the International Maritime Organization influence the design and implementation of an allocation mechanism under each of these two bodies. We find that the allocation mechanism that best meets criteria related to effectiveness and equity would be one in which emissions are assigned to countries of ship owners, and which operates under the UNFCCC.

Pages

Subscribe to Energy Transition